Paul, First, a non-v4 endpoint would not reply to a v4 feature of early H.245 tunnel, so it cannot be lost. Second, a lost message in a GK is not good; and will result in a failure to establish the early H.245. I would still like to see this as a v4 mandatory. For then there is a possibility to have migration in support of early network features. Bob -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Callaghan Siemens Enterprise Networks 5500 Broken Sound Blvd, Boca Raton, Fl 33487 Tel: +1 561 923-1756 Fax: +1 561 923-1403 Email: Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Paul Long [mailto:plong@PACKETIZER.COM] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 8:53 AM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: fastStart element in all Q.931 messages up to andincludingConnect Bob, ...and what if the EP is in communication with a pre-v4 EP or GK?. Paul Long ipDialog -----Original Message----- From: Callaghan, Robert [mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 7:38 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: fastStart element in all Q.931 messages up to andincludingCon nect Paul, An additional consideration on this subject: In order to have a working early H.245 tunnel, I would like to make CALL PROCeeding and PROGRESS messages as mandatory understood when received in v4. Otherwise, the user will be forced to use a FACILITY message along with these messages which will increase the used bandwidth. Bob ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com